My apologies for Wednesday's light blogging. Blame the government of the District of Columbia. They conscripted me into jury duty. This is the third time since 2003. DC is the site of federal courts, not to mention the site of many crimes. So its residents, provided they're not recent felons, get called into jury pools quite often.

I served on the jury of a drug case a few years back, the details of which I found quite interesting. The crime occured outside a methadone clinic, which struck me as very Willie Suttonesque. If you remember, Sutton was the Depression-era bank robber who, when asked why he robbed banks, replied, because that's where the money's kept. Anyhow, after a lot of ridiculous deliberation, which included discussions of jury nullification and the movie Minority Report (A juror somehow found that germane to the case. Thankfully, impatient jurors did not.), we reached a compromise by convicting on one dealing count and dropping two other distribution charges to mere possession charges. The defendant's decision to testify did her in, and helped me to understand why defense attorneys are so reluctant to put their clients on the stand.

Wednesday's case was much more peculiar, in a bad way, than the case I had several years back. When I glimpsed the juror questionnaire, which asked potential jurors if the case made them "uncomfortable," I knew I was in for a long day. My fears were confirmed when the presiding judge told the jury pool that the case they might sit for involved forgery and...nonconsensual, male-on-male sex. When she added that the case might take more than two weeks, I feared my long day would turn into a long month. I noted on the questionnaire that the case did indeed make me "uncomfortable." Was it a trick question? I mean, if such a case doesn't make you uncomfortable, you're not normal enough to sit on a jury, are you?

I did not want to get picked for this jury. With too much time on my hands, things to say to the judge that would make me appear so insane as to automatically disqualify me passed rapidly through my mind:

"Do the particulars of this case bother me? Heck, yeah. Forgery is a vile, terrible, heinous crime, which should be punshed severely... Oh, you were talking about the other charge?"

"What? I get to hear descriptions of nonconsensual homosexual encounters, and you're going to pay me the $30 per diem!!! Sign me up, your honor."

"Biased? Against the defendant? Well, the fact that he keeps eyeballing me the way King Kong Bundy looks at a jelly doughnut does strike me as incriminating. But I can assure you, this behavior won't influence my judgment one bit."

Alas, my respect for the jury system, as well as my self-respect, prevented me from sharing these bizarre thoughts with the judge (but not with you). My fantasy of deliberately acting like a lunatic gave way to honest answers that provided the judge no cause to dismiss me. The alleged victim, and the defendant, deserved the best jury possible. It's just not in me to sabotage justice. But I still wanted out. My only hope lay in the lawyers' peremptory challenges. Please, no. Please, no. Please, no. The clerk of the court calls me into the jury box. NOOOOOO!!! I begin to feel nauseous. But just as quickly, I hear: "Juror number 731, you may go back to your seat." I have completed my civic duty, and without exposing my mind and soul to dark tales of wickedness.

I can certainly appreciate why you didn't want to be on the jury, but asking you if you feel "uncomfortable" strikes me as comparable (I can't use the word @nal here, so I can't say @nalogous, coincidentially) to asking you if you're "open-minded" about such things. I can't see how this matters. A rape is a rape. Why don't they just ask you if you've ever had any Homo-Erotic fantasies...or if you like movies about gladiators? The reason is that they want a bunch of gay-friendly jurors on the court.

Travesty.

I'm suprised that you didn't lie through your ass to get selected. I mean it would be the ideal way to vent your homophobia and get one of thoes nasty assf*ckers out of decent society. And you could off-set any homo friendly liberal jurors that felt sorry for the accused. You would have also had some good fodder for your next book. Like how the judge was "legislating from the bench" or how the other jurors were a bunch of pansy-assed liberals. Also, it would have given you another way distribute your books and your narrow racist, homophobic views. Such a shame you missed a good opportunity.

One nice things about poofters like the previous commenter is that they're so pleasant. No wonder they think we should accept their deviant behavior with open arms. What's not to like?

What a hyprocrit. You can't make a proper retort without engaging in a cheap, petty peronsal attack. You've mistaken your asshole for your mouth so all that comes out is a pile of stinking shit. That's why you have no crediability with real Americans. What a hyprocrit and a fraud.

What a hyprocrit.

First of all, Mr. Puffer, the word is hypocrite. Get a spell-checker. Secondly, the definition of the word that escapes your ability to spell it, is:

a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives

You may rest assured that I believe everything I said with no reservation.

You can't make a proper retort without engaging in a cheap, petty peronsal attack.

WTF is peronsal? More illiteracy, Pete? Did you mean personal?

Ok, back to the dictionary for you. Here is the definition of retort that applies to your feeble attempt to use it:

rejoinder: a quick reply to a question or remark (especially a witty or critical one);

I made a quick reply to your remark (which, BTW, was neither witty or critical, just the inane ranting of a fool).

You've mistaken your asshole for your mouth so all that comes out is a pile of stinking shit.

Of course, you would never resort to personal attacks, right, Mr. P. Puffer? And if anyone would know about assholes and stinking shit, it would be you, who likely has much experience with a Dirty Sanchez, right?

That's why you have no crediability with real Americans. What a hyprocrit and a fraud.

Learn how to spell, you clown. The word is credibility. Are you that stupid, uneducated, or just lazy? If you are an example of a real American, then I wasted nearly 10 years in the US military trying to defend your pansy ass. We should have sent you over to the Middle East where they know how to deal with Nancy Boys.

Scaramonga: The same request I made to GaLiberal in an earlier thread I now make to you: stop swearing on my site. Content filters block sites that contain certain profane words. This limits the number of readers who are able to access this site from computers. This is especially true of work computers and Internet cafe computers. If you want to insult people without using words a content filter would pick up on, you're free to do so. Just don't use words that limit the reach of my site because of family-friendly content filters and other devices that block sites that contain profanity.

You know? An interesting observation was made by poster Gary a few weeks back.

His contention is that gays really believe that they are superior and in conversation with them and from reading what they write, this appears to be true.

I suppose that if staying slim, wearing the right clothes and having an exquisitely decorated crib are criterion for social and intellectual superiority, then they're there.

But, unless with their own, they are usually caustic, unreasonable and insecure.

Like pulling the 'rascist' card, calling someone a 'homophobe' is just a social leveraging ploy.

BTW: Gary, don't go away pizzed as you were hammered on some posts. Bucker up son! You had some good posts.

GaLib, as displayed by by your comments it dawns on us that you are an a$$ man as opposed to a organist.

You're constantly using backside references to get your point across.

Please post someplace else.